Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

8-27-89 . . . A baseball player must wait five years following retirement to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose will be eligible in about three years. But already there are arguments for and against his induction. Those opposed to induction claim that his gambling activities sully his reputation and undermine his integrity and character. The implication is that these are relevant considerations for Hall of Fame induction. Those in favor of induction—me, for example—claim that the Hall of Fame is for excellent baseball players, not excellent persons. However bad Pete Rose may be as a person, he was an excellent baseball player. No one has ever accused him of giving less than his best on the playing field, as is evidenced by his nickname, Charlie Hustle. It’ll be a long time before anyone plays with the intensity and desire of Pete Rose. And who can match his numbers? Unfortunately, people—including many sportswriters—are unable to distinguish [between] excellence as a ballplayer and excellence as a person. They think that the Hall of Fame should be reserved for moral saints. If that were the case, then many current members should not have been inducted and should now be thrown out. I’m sure that the Hall of Fame contains racists, sexists, spousal abusers, liars, thieves, and even batterers. Imagine the implications of keeping Rose out on grounds of moral turpitude. Every candidate for the Hall of Fame, henceforth, would have to be investigated for moral improprieties, like candidates for bar admission. To me, that’s a reductio on the idea. [My view on this hasn’t changed in 20 years. That Rose is still not a member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame is disgraceful. He is one of the greatest players of all time, if not the greatest.]